8/28/14

Why do trees clap their hands? (1)

I
was bathing Ethel and singing Isaiah 55:12 where he said the mountains
will break into singing and the trees of the field with clap their
hands. I asked her, “Why do you think the trees will clap their hands?”
She said, “Probably because they’re happy!” With that she was done. Her
quick response was right on target but I was looking for more and she
wasn’t in the position to breathe and discuss theology at the same time.

T

he
biblical witness tells us that at the great Rebellion, when the human
race began its runaway madness and thought they’d do better with their
self-created destiny—the biblical witness tells us that the earth was
cursed (Genesis 3:17). It wasn’t Man that cursed it, though it was the
humans that triggered the curse. God cursed it (Genesis 5:29) and he
cursed it, he said, “because of you” (Genesis 3:17)!

As
the Bible tells it, the non-human creation’s “well-being” and destiny
is linked inextricably with the human’s relationship with God. Obviously
the creation is not a choosing or self-conscious entity but the human
dependence on creation is witnessed by the fact that it was out of the
earth that God created the humans and it is out of the earth that God
gives humans their sustenance. We can say what we like about wealth and
political clout but you can’t eat or drink those things even though the
power structures can keep food and drink from the powerless and poor. In
the end, what we need to keep us alive at the simple biological level
comes from the earth.

By
the will of God the creation protests against the human perversion of
power. The nature of that protest is that the creation withholds from
the human family that which God initially had purposed for it to give.
God gave the humans dominion over creation (Genesis 1:26-28) to live
with it in his image. The face of God that we see in creation is the
face of a life-bringer, a harmony and peace-bringer; we see someone who
enables all to flourish and grow in the place he gave them. Creation’s
lord (humankind) fell through sin from its place of glory and the
creation that was a witness to and an expression of that glory was
brought down with mankind. The human family that tumbled down toward
futility was matched by a creation that as a consequence reflected the
human fall. As the humans withheld from their Lord what was due him so
the creation withheld from its lord what was due him. The peace and
harmony that was experienced within the created sphere was pretty well
shattered.

Paul
says in Romans 8:19-22 that the creation groans in its frustration or
futility and eagerly looks forward to the time when the children of God
are manifested in glory because then it will be liberated from its
present futility and frustration. Under its shameful lord it cannot be
all that it was created to be but the Lord God made it and tied its
fortunes to the human lord. Nevertheless, in withholding from its human
lord the glory initially given to him the creation is bearing witness to
the judgement of God against that human lord. The creation, whatever
its frustration at being implicated in the Fall takes God’s side in the
resultant situation.

After
we’ve admitted some issues we can’t settle about the Genesis 3:17-19
and get to its central thrust, what’s the text saying to us and what
does it mean by what it says to us? Whatever else it says it tells us
this. By the will and wisdom of God the creation cannot finally be at
peace with the human family as long as the human family is not finally
at peace with God. This close tie between the creation and the humans is
reflected throughout the entire biblical record.

Leviticus 18:24-28 has God saying this to Israel,
“Do not defile yourself in any of these ways, because this is how the
nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. Even the
land was defiled; so I punished it for its sins, and the land vomited
out its inhabitants...And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out
as it vomited out the nations that were before you.” [Note that the
punishment of the landis expressed in its vomiting out its people. Land wasn't made for that; that is a frustration of why it exists.]

Yes,
I can see there are numerous things to be worked out in such texts. But
after we’ve made room for “anthropomorphism” and the like, what does
the text tell us about the land and what does it mean by what it tells
us about the land? It tells us at least this: land as pictured in such a
text is opposed to human wickedness and it acts as God’s instrument in
punishing the wickedness.

But
we’re to notice how close the relationship is between land and people.
The land out of which humans are created and which sustains them is
“punished [paqad] for its sins.” What that means,
precisely, isn’t spelled out but other texts come to our aid. Just the
same, though it is “punished for its sins” the land is related to God in
his aversion to human sin and vomits the sinners out. [The entire
notion of “visiting” iniquity needs to be looked at with care.]

God
“visits” the sins committed in the land on the land itself. The land
experiences drought and famine and pestilence and desolation. It is left
unattended and becomes wild, people avoid it think it is jinxed; they
call it a “devourer of its people.”

Here’s how Ezekiel 36:1-15 has it. God tells Ezekiel to address the land of Israel. He is not to talk about the land but to speak to
the land. “Son of man, prophesy to the mountains of Israel and say, ‘O
mountains of Israel, hear the word of the Lord...Because they ravaged
and hounded you from every side so that you became the possession of the
rest of the nations and the object of people’s malicious talk and
slander...This is what the Sovereign Lord says...because you have
suffered the scorn of the nations...I swear with uplifted hand that the
nations around you will suffer scorn. But you, O mountains of Israel,
will produce branches and fruit...I am concerned for you and will look
on you with favor; you will be plowed and sown, and I will multiply the
number of people on you...I will increase the number of men and animals
upon you...I will settle people on you as in the past. I will cause
people, my people Israel,
to walk upon you. They will posses you, and you will be their
inheritance; you will never again deprive them of their children.
Because people say to you, ‘You devour men and deprive your nation of
its children,’ therefore you will no longer devour or make your nation
childless.”

You’d
think God was speaking to a person when you read this sort of thing. It
looks like the land consciously chose to throw its people out. But
36:16-21 makes it clear that it’s God that makes exiles of his sinning
people. But what extraordinary speech it is that ties the land so
closely to the sins of the people and the judgement against them.

And
what astonishing speech it is that teaches us that when the people of
God are manifested in completed glory with their Lord that the eager
creation will share in the liberation of God’s people and become the
place where righteousness dwells. See Romans 8:16-23.

The
intimate relationship between the land and the people, the land and the
sins of the people is directly linked to the fact that the land is
where God chose to live with the humans. The earth is God’s chosen
dwelling place as well as man’s. We hear this in Numbers 35:34 where the
people are forbidden to pollute the land because God manifests himself
there.

The Pope, the Papacy, and the Bible

by

Moisés Pinedo

George Bush said of him: “When you are in his presence you say to
yourself: ‘Here is a great man, a great leader.’ He is a man of liberty,
of faith, who suffers every time the Church, or man, is oppressed. He
will occupy, with all authority, a privileged position in the history of
our time. I am not Catholic, but towards him I feel a deeply profound
respect and a sincere affection” (as quoted in Mirás, n.d.).
Of whom was the former president of the United States speaking? His
commentary was in reference to the late Karol Wojtyla, more commonly
recognized as Pope John Paul II. Having been considered for 26 years as
the “successor of the apostle Peter,” and having been the heir of an
endless hierarchical legacy, John Paul II was a man who
influenced the hearts of many Catholics, as well as many other religious
people. At his death, thousands of followers gathered in or near St.
Peter’s Plaza in Rome to pay tribute to the pope, while the bells of the
Catholic Church buildings rang throughout the city (see BBC News,
2005). Since April 2, 2005, the eulogies of many close associates and
supporters have been heard, and it is certain that this situation will
continue for some time after his burial. Even the current president of
the United States has raised his voice to declare:

[T]he world has lost a champion of human freedom, and a good and faithful servant of God has been called home. Pope John Paul II left the throne of St. Peter in the same way he ascended to it—as a witness to the dignity of human life (Bush, 2005, emp. added).

John Paul II was, for more than a quarter of a century, a representative of the monopolized throne of the Catholic Church—the papacy.
But, what is the papacy? Is there a scriptural basis for this Catholic
institution? Did God designate a legacy of “ecclesiastical leaders” on
Earth?
Apart from what people may think concerning this institution or its
members, and apart from any eulogies, blessings, insults, or
condemnations that religious people may offer concerning this
ecclesiastical order, it is my desire to open the pages of the Bible, as
well as the pages of history, to analyze whether the papacy (with its
large list of members) is a divine institution, or whether it simply
should be classified as a human invention that is unworthy of the type
of honor bestowed upon it.

THE ALLEGED BIBLICAL BASIS FOR THE PAPACY

And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I
will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against
it (Matthew 16:18).

This is the biblical verse to which the Catholic apologist inevitably
turns in order to defend the establishment of the papacy. Through an
arbitrary interpretation of this verse—an interpretation which suggests
that God constituted Peter (and ultimately his successors) as the “rock”
of the church—the Catholic Church has built a grand structure with only
one man as the head.
But in order to be consistent with biblical truth, we must understand
the difference between the two words used in Matthew 16:18. In reference
to Peter, the Holy Spirit recorded the Greek word petros—a proper noun which denotes a stone that can be easily moved. In contrast, in reference to the “rock,” the Holy Spirit recorded the Greek word petra,
which denotes a solid mass of rock (see Vine, 1999, p. 663). While the
word used for Peter corresponds to the Aramaic name that Jesus had given
him (Kepha, John 1:42), the word used for “rock” refers to the
foundation of the church—i.e., Peter’s confession that pointed to Christ
as God and the Messiah (cf. Matthew 16:16).
The biblical truth that the word “rock” was used in reference to Christ
Himself is derived not only from the etymology and context of Matthew
16:16-19, but this is also a truth taught and recognized throughout the
entire Bible. Peter, who received the words of Jesus first hand, used
the same Greek word petra in reference to Christ (1 Peter 2:8;
cf. Acts 4:11). Without a doubt, Peter, more than any religious person
of our modern time, would convey the true meaning of the word used by
our Lord.
The inspired apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “…and did all drink
the same spiritual drink: for they drank of a spiritual rock that
followed them:and the rock was Christ” (1 Corinthians 10:4, emp.
added). The truth is that, ever since the Old Testament, the rock was
always Christ, not Peter. In Ephesians 2:20, Paul exhorted: “…being
built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone”
(emp. added). In Luke 20:17-18 Jesus remarked: “What, then, is this
that is written, ‘The stone which the builders rejected, The same was
made the head of the corner? Everyone that falleth on that stone shall
be broken to pieces, but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will scatter
him as dust’ ” (cf. Matthew 21:42,44 and Mark 12:10). In effect, Jesus
used the rejection of the rock by the builders to show the rejection of
the religious leaders of His time concerning His person. Without a
doubt, the One Who could tell us with total veracity what the word
“rock” refers to is Jesus Himself—Who used it and applied it to Himself.
Another aspect to consider is the fulfillment of the prophecies given
by Jesus. He said that “upon this rock I will build my church” (Matthew
16:18). If the “rock” is referring to the confession made by Peter
(Matthew 16:16)—which revealed the truth that Jesus was God and the
anticipated Messiah—it would be upon this truth that the church would be
established. In effect, this prophecy realizes fulfillment when we
learn that in Acts 2:36, the truth that Jesus was God and the Messiah is
presented once again as a prologue to the birth of Christianity, and
ultimately, of the church. The truth of the matter is that nothing
exists in this biblical text to authorize the establishment of the
papacy.
Finally, it is important to emphasize that the idea (borne of
tradition) that Peter was exalted over the other apostles—and thereby
was transformed into the pioneer for the papal throne—is biblically
unsustainable. Jesus imbued each of His apostles with the same authority
(Matthew 28:19-20). When the apostles disputed among themselves over
who was the greatest, Jesus sent them a clear message: “The kings of the
Gentiles have lordship over them… But ye shall not be so” (Luke
22:24-26, emp. added; cf. Matthew 18:1-5; Mark 9:33-37; Luke 9:46-48).
On another occasion, Jesus told them: “Ye know that the rulers of the
Gentiles lord it over them… Not so shall it be among you”
(Matthew 20:25-26, emp. added). Unfortunately there are those today who
place themselves in opposition to this biblical sentiment so that an
existing hierarchy should be evident among the first-century apostles, even when Jesus said it should not be!
The truth is that Peter was an apostle just like the other apostles (2 Corinthians 11:5; 12:11), and was a man just like other men (with the word “man” bearing many serious implications). As a man,
Peter never demanded special treatment or demanded displays of
adoration for himself. When Cornelius lay prostrate before Peter (cf.
Acts 10:25), he told him: “Stand up; I myself also am a man” (Acts 10:26, emp. added). With this statement Peter set forth three very important points: (a) that he was also a man—that is to say, a man just like Cornelius; (b) that he was a man—that is to say, just like all men; and (c) that he was a man—that
is to say that he was not God, and ultimately was not worthy of
worship. [Note the position of the emphasis in the three points just
made.]
Peter understood with all humility the implications of being only a man. But popes, being only men
like Peter, allow multitudes to bow their knees before them, kiss their
feet, and reverence them—thereby receiving worship that does not
rightfully belong to them. What a tremendous difference between Peter
and his supposed successors! Not even an angel of God would permit John
to show him adoration by kneeling before him (Revelation 22:8-9). One
can only be astonished when considering what tremendous audacity it
takes to try to usurp the place where God belongs!

THE ORIGIN OF THE PAPACY

If Peter was not a pope, and the Bible does not record a papal
hierarchy, the question arises: When and how did the papacy originate?
When Christ established His church, “he gave some to be apostles; and
some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors [i.e., bishops—MP] and teachers” (Ephesians 4:11). Jesus never
established a single bishop over a multiplicity of others; rather, He
established an impartial order of service. However, men departed from
the original pattern of the Bible in search of power, honor, and
deification. The first indication of this desertion was when the
distinction between the words, bishops, elders, and pastors was
made—titles that are used interchangeably in the Bible (e.g., Acts
20:17,28; Titus 1:5,7; 1 Peter 5:1-2; etc.)—thereby giving preeminence
to the position of bishop. Quickly, the “bishop” came to take prominence
over not only a congregation, but over a “diocese”—congregations of a
district or a complete city (see Miller, 1976, par. 42).
One of the characters that clung to a hierarchy of the church by only
one man (i.e., “the bishop”) was Ignatius of Antioch. In his letter to
the Ephesians, he wrote:

For if I in a short time had such converse with your bishop, which was
not after the manner of men but in the Spirit, how much more do I
congratulate you who are closely joined with him as the Church is with
Jesus Christ and as Jesus Christ is with the Father, that all things may
be harmonious in unity.… Let us therefore be careful not to resist the
bishop, that by our submission we may give ourselves to God (Ignatius to the Ephesians, 5:1,3, n.d.).

Later, when Emperor Constantine made Christianity a religion of
“power,” the bishops strengthened and increased their prerogatives. Many
new bishops (e.g., Damasus, Siricio) fought to affirm their
hierarchical position in the church at Rome, appealing to their inherent
“authority” in their cathedra (see Encuentra, 2000-2004). In A.D.
440, the pontificate of Leo I arrived. He became an ardent defender of
the supremacy of the Roman bishop over all of the other bishops of the
West. In his declaration to the Bishop of Constantinople, he wrote:

Constantinople has its own glory and by the mercy of God has become
the seat of the empire. But secular matters are based on one thing, and
ecclesiastical matters on another. Nothing will stand which is not built
on the Rock which the Lord laid in the foundation…your city is royal
but you cannot make it Apostolic (Mattox, 1961, pp. 139-140).

In mid-September of 590, Gregory the Great was designated as the bishop
of Rome. He proclaimed himself as pope, and head of the “universal
church.” He did his best to uphold the so-called Petrine Tradition; and
towards the end of his pontificate, “the theory of the primacy of Peter
and the Roman bishop as his successor and the universal head of the
church was definitively established” (Mattox, p. 140). Finally, with the
ascension of Boniface III to the papal throne on February 19, 607, it
was established (by his own declaration!) that the only “universal
bishop” would be that of Rome—ultimately, the one and only pope.
Boniface III, who lived less than a year after his election, left the
world of Catholic religion with many other bishops who energetically
competed in the “endless race for supremacy” known as the papacy.

THE ALLEGED INFALLIBILITY OF THE PAPACY

One of the most treasured doctrines of the Roman papacy is that of
infallibility. Catholicism argues that when the pope speaks as the head
of the universal church, and thereby exercises his “supreme” authority,
he cannot make a mistake. Pope Pio IX established the doctrine of papal
infallibility in 1870. In light of this relatively recent doctrine, the
question begs to be asked: What about the other popes who exercised
their power before 1870? The answer can be presented as follows:

…a dogma is an eternal truth that the Church did not invent but rather “discovered,” which, however, all of the other popes have been subject to it without knowing it (Infaliblidad, n.d., emp. added).

Nevertheless, history speaks strongly against this doctrine. For
example, Pope Honorius I (625) bore (after his death) the title of
“heretic” for having stood in agreement with the doctrine of
monotheletism (the doctrine that acknowledged two distinct natures
within Christ, but only one divine will). He was censured by the
sixth ecumenical council, and later even by the seventh and the eighth
(Constantinople III, 680; Nicea II, 787; and Constantinople IV, 869).
Pope Leo II recognized the doctrinal error of Honorius, and for
many centuries, the popes, in their enthronement, were required to swear
that “they rejected the heresy whose ferment was introduced by
Honorius” (see Hermosillo, n.d.). Another pope, Eugenius IV (1431),
condemned Joan of Arc to be burned at the stake for considering her to
be a participant of witchcraft, though Benedict XV canonized her as a
“saint” on May 16, 1920 (see Infalibilidad Papal, n.d.). Other popes,
like Paul III, Paul IV, Sixtus IV, Pio IX, et al., authorized, promoted,
incited, and reinforced the “Holy” Inquisition for which the late Pope
John Paul II had to apologize worldwide.
The same John Paul II (1978-2005) gave a fatal blow to the doctrine of
infallibility. In opposition to the declarations of other popes and of
Catholic doctrine itself, this pope declared:

The Spirit of Christ uses other churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation (1979, 4.32).

People outside the Catholic Church and the Gospel can attain salvation by grace of Christ (1990, 1.10).

People can be saved by living a moral life, without knowing anything about Christ and the Catholic Church (1993, 3).

There is sanctification outside the boundaries of the Catholic Church (1995, 1.12).

The martyrs of any religious community can find the extraordinary grace of the Holy Spirit (1995, 3.84).

Furthermore, concerning the erroneous concept of organic evolution, on
October 22, 1996, Pope John Paul II declared that “new knowledge has led
to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a
hypothesis” (see “John Paul II,” 1996). But if evolution is to be
considered more than merely a hypothesis, Adam disappears!
Ultimately, then, how can it be, as Catholics allege, that humanity
carries the sin of the first man? Should we not say, instead, that
humanity carries the “sin” of the last primate from which we “descended”
(as if primates could sin!)? Many other examples could be given, but
surely the few points mentioned in this brief study provide sufficient
evidence to warrant us discarding Roman Catholic doctrine. Certainly the
doctrine of papal infallibility has caused, and continues to cause,
many people to accept false doctrines such as original sin, the
assumption of Mary, the canonization of saints, the “factuality” of
evolution, and even papal infallibility itself—doctrines that are
completely lacking in any biblical foundation.
What is certain is that when Pio IX declared that the pope was
infallible, with the same “infallibility” that he pretended to have, he
gave his final “infallible” stamp of approval for his declaration of the
infallibility. Though this seems to be a jumble of words, this is
exactly what happened. However, while Pio IX declared that the Pope was
infallible, Adriano VI (another presumably infallible pope), declared in
1523:

It remains above all doubt that a Pope can err even in subjects touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment and decree. In truth, many roman pontiffs were heretics (as quoted in Sapia, 2000, emp. added).

So, then, Catholicism arrives at a problem in that two popes, allegedly
both possessors of the same “infallibility,” affirm self-contradictory
positions. How could one pope, who is supposedly infallible, condemn his
own infallibility and that of others? If Pio IX was correct, Adriano VI
made a mistake; and if one makes a mistake, then none of the popes can be infallible since the doctrine of infallibility supposedly involves all
of the popes. Therefore, the only conclusion at which we can arrive
from the history of the popes and their evident contradictions is that
the doctrine of papal infallibility is unmistakably false.

CONCLUSION

The pages of the life of another member of the papacy have been
written, finished, and closed. His faithful followers may weep, but soon
a new pope will arise. A group of “select cardinals” who lack
“infallibility” will convene in a room (conclave) and cast their secret
votes (see Conclave, 1908). If all happens as planned, a new,
“infallible” pope will be the result of the vote of fallible men.
“Who will be the new Pope?,” many will ask. Sadly, in this moment of
media racket, Catholic grief, and international suspense, many people
will never hear the intense scream of the Bible to abandon the human
hierarchy that apostasy has established.
The truth is that there is only one Head of the church—Christ
(Ephesians 1:22-23). Also, there is only one rock that serves as the
foundation of the church (i.e. Christ, 1 Corinthians 3:11). To adopt
another rock (i.e., another foundation) instead of that which was
already laid, is to build on an unstable foundation. To place another
rock instead of that which is already placed is to build upon a
foundation of men. To place another rock instead of that which is
already placed is to usurp the revered place of Christ.
We have no choice but to say that there is no biblical foundation or
authorization for the existence of the papacy. The rock—Christ—should
not be rejected in order to place human foundations in His position.
Those who do so build upon an unstable foundation that one day will
collapse. With Paul, faithful Christians can confidently declare: “For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 3:11, emp. added).

"THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS"
A Love That Can Hate (12:9-10)
INTRODUCTION
1. In Romans 12, Paul discusses the practical side of the Christian life
2. In the first part of the chapter, he establishes the general
principle of self-sacrifice...
a. As the foundation of all goodness - Ro 12:1
b. Accomplished through a transformation - Ro 12:2
c. Manifested in humble service of one's abilities - Ro 12:3-8
3. Beginning with verse 9, we find a series of exhortations...
a. That continue to the end of the chapter
b. That at first glance, may at time seem disconnected
4. For example, consider the exhortations in our text (Ro 12:9-10)...
a. The first and last relate to love
b. But the intervening clause pertains to hate
-- But upon careful reflection, these exhortations may not be
disjointed
[One way to connect these exhortations is to describe them as depicting
"A Love That Can Hate". To see how that is possible, consider that a
Christian must first have...]
I. AN HONEST LOVE
A. LOVE WITHOUT HYPOCRISY...
1. We are to have a love that is honest, sincere and genuine - Ro 12:9a
2. Whereas a love that is faked is repulsive
a. In which someone claims to love you
b. But their actions speak otherwise
3. Yet sometimes our words do surpass our true feelings
a. We talk about love, sing about it
b. But don't always live up to it!
4. Making us feel guilty when we read a passage such as our text
-- How can we love sincerely and without hypocrisy?
B. DEVELOPING AN HONEST LOVE...
1. The position of this exhortation in Paul's writing may serve as
a clue
a. After discussing the need for being transformed by the
renewing of our minds
b. An honest love can't be experienced or shown without this
transformation
2. This transformation occurs the more we contemplate the love and
mercies of God - cf. 1Jn 4:7b ("for love is of God")
3. Only as we let the mind of Christ be in us can we love as we
should - cf. Php 2:2-5
[So we need to develop an honest love, one that comes by contemplating
God's love for us. But as we continue in our text, we see that it can
also be "A Love That Can Hate"...]
II. ABHORRING EVIL, CLINGING TO WHAT IS GOOD
A. ESSENTIAL TO HAVING AN HONEST LOVE...
1. A mutual hatred of evil and clinging to good is necessary for
an honest love - Ro 12:9b
2. Why? If not careful, love can easily lose its purity and depth
a. The lusts of the flesh are strong
b. They can easily pervert the nature of our love
c. Profession of love can easily become a cover for evil
3. Therefore the need to "abhor what is evil" - cf. Ep 5:2-5
a. Walk in love as Christ loved us
b. But eschew any perversion of love!
B. DEVELOPING A PROPER HATRED OF EVIL...
1. Comes by clinging to what is good, not vice versa!
2. Why do some hate evil?
a. There are those who very quick to hate evil (e.g., "hobby
riders")
b. Such are mostly negative and rarely positive in their
attitudes
c. They hate evil, but do not cling to what is good, creating
an unbalance
d. Motivated by carnal desires (power, fame), not by the spirit
of Christ
3. Hatred of evil should come from first clinging to that which is
good
a. As implied by the Psalmist in Ps 119:103-104
b. The powerful emotion of hate can then be properly balanced
by a love of good!
[So the love that is to characterize Christians is to be "A Love That
Can Hate" when that hate is properly motivated and directed. But now
let's consider how such love is to be manifested toward our brethren...]
III. AFFECTIONATE AND PREFERENTIAL
A. WITH GREAT TENDERNESS AND AFFECTION...
1. The expression "kindly affectionate" means "to love as family"
(philostorgos)
a. Just as you would your own family members
b. To stress the point, Paul adds "in brotherly love"
(philadelphia)
2. We are to have great feeling of love towards those in Christ
a. As Paul had toward the brethren at Philippi - Php 1:8
b. As the Ephesian elders had toward Paul - Ac 20:36-38
-- Such is "A Love That Can Hate"!
B. DESIRING TO OUTDO ONE ANOTHER IN SHOWING HONOR...
1. This is the meaning of "in honor giving preference to one
another"
a. "The word preferring means going before, leading, setting an
example." - Barnes
b. "Thus in showing mutual respect and honor, they were to
strive to excel; not to see which could obtain most honor,
but which could confer most, or manifest most respect."
- ibid.
2. Thus we are to delight in exalting our brethren over ourselves!
a. As commanded in Php 2:3
b. Freeing us from petty jealousies that can threaten true love
CONCLUSION
1. What is the kind of love that God desires for His children? "A Love
That Can Hate"!
2. Such is the love that God has shown toward us...
a. A love that is honest and sincere, demonstrated by the sending of
His Son to die for our sins
b. A love that hates evil and clings to what is good, revealed
throughout the Word of God
c. A love that is affectionate and delights in showing honor, as God
has done toward His children who obey Him!
If we are in Christ, is this the kind of love we display? If you are
not in Christ, won't you respond to this love in obedience to the gospel
of Christ...?
Note: The main idea for this lesson came from a sermon by Alexander
MacLaren, in his Expositions Of Holy Scripture.

I hate mistakes!!! Even worse, I am more upset when I MAKE THEM!!!! Question: Can you find the mistake above? I found it after a short while, but it did take a minute or two. Question number two: Can God make a mistake? And along with that... is it right to question the actions of God at all? Then, there is the following story from the book of Genesis...

Genesis 18:17-33 NASB(17) The LORD said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do,(18) since Abraham will surely become a great and mighty nation, and in him all the nations of the earth will be blessed?(19) "For I have chosen him, so that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice, so that the LORD may bring upon Abraham what He has spoken about him."

(20) And the LORD said, "The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave.(21) "I will go down now, and see if they have done entirely according to its outcry, which has come to Me; and if not, I will know."

(22) Then the men turned away from there and went toward Sodom, while Abraham was still standing before the LORD.(23) Abraham came near and said,

"Will You indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?

(24) "Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; will You indeed sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous who are in it?(25) "Far be it from You to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from You!

Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?"

(26) So the LORD said,

"If I find in Sodom fifty righteous

within the city, then I will spare the whole place on their account."

(27) And Abraham replied, "Now behold, I have ventured to speak to the Lord, although I am but dust and ashes.(28) "Suppose the fifty righteous are lacking five, will You destroy the whole city because of five?" And He said, "I will not destroy it if I find forty-five there."(29) He spoke to Him yet again and said, "Suppose forty are found there?" And He said,

"I will not do it on account of the forty."

(30) Then he said, "Oh may the Lord not be angry, and I shall speak; suppose thirty are found there?" And He said,

"I will not do it if I find thirty there."

(31) And he said, "Now behold, I have ventured to speak to the Lord; suppose twenty are found there?" And He said,

"I will not destroy it on account of the twenty."

(32) Then he said, "Oh may the Lord not be angry, and I shall speak only this once; suppose ten are found there?" And He said,

"I will not destroy it on account of the ten."

(33) As soon as He had finished speaking to Abraham the LORD departed, and Abraham returned to his place.

Abraham found favor with God and questioned him concerning his judgments; dangerous territory indeed!!! But God listened to Abraham, even when the judgement rested on finding ten righteous men in a city full of sin. And not just any sin- sexual sin; that of homosexuality! How did God handle this situation... read on...

Genesis 19:1-25 NASB(1) Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening as Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground.(2) And he said, "Now behold, my lords, please turn aside into your servant's house, and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way." They said however, "No, but we shall spend the night in the square."(3) Yet he urged them strongly, so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he prepared a feast for them, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.(4) Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter;(5) and they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them."(6) But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him,(7) and said, "Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly.(8) "Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof."(9) But they said, "Stand aside." Furthermore, they said, "This one came in as an alien, and already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them." So they pressed hard against Lot and came near to break the door.(10) But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them, and shut the door.(11) They struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they wearied themselves trying to find the doorway.

(12) Then the two men said to Lot, "Whom else have you here? A son-in-law, and your sons, and your daughters, and whomever you have in the city, bring them out of the place;

(13) for we are about to destroy this place, because their outcry has become so great before the LORD that the LORD has sent us to destroy it."

(14) Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters, and said, "Up, get out of this place, for the LORD will destroy the city." But he appeared to his sons-in-law to be jesting.(15) When morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, "Up, take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away in the punishment of the city."(16) But he hesitated. So the men seized his hand and the hand of his wife and the hands of his two daughters, for the compassion of the LORD was upon him; and they brought him out, and put him outside the city.(17) When they had brought them outside, one said, "Escape for your life! Do not look behind you, and do not stay anywhere in the valley; escape to the mountains, or you will be swept away."(18) But Lot said to them, "Oh no, my lords!(19) "Now behold, your servant has found favor in your sight, and you have magnified your lovingkindness, which you have shown me by saving my life; but I cannot escape to the mountains, for the disaster will overtake me and I will die;(20) now behold, this town is near enough to flee to, and it is small. Please, let me escape there (is it not small?) that my life may be saved."(21) He said to him, "Behold, I grant you this request also, not to overthrow the town of which you have spoken.(22) "Hurry, escape there, for I cannot do anything until you arrive there." Therefore the name of the town was called Zoar.(23) The sun had risen over the earth when Lot came to Zoar.(24) Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven,(25) and He overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.

In the United States of America it has become fashionable to accept homosexuality as "normal". God thinks otherwise!!! Did God make a mistake in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah? Some would say that God should have just left them alone to do their own thing, or perhaps God shouldn't be so homophobic or judgemental about their lifestyle. God doesn't make mistakes!!! And it is not wrong to question him when one has a proper attitude of respect toward the almighty (see Abraham's questions in the first passage). Notice also, Abraham did not ask for the deliverance of the wicked, only the righteous. The next time someone tries to justify a deviant lifestyle to you, remember what God has done in the past, and remind them of these verses from Genesis. If they don't like them- that becomes a matter between them and GOD, not you.